Tweet
Originally posted by Sluggie
View Post
-
2 committee members, the rdfra lads outnumbered them 3 to 1...You're even dumber than I tell people
You might have been infected but you never were a bore -
May I just say Eamonn O Cuiv is a gobshyte.MEMBERS PRESENT:
Information on Seán Kenny Zoom on Seán Kenny Deputy Seán Kenny, Information on Ivana Bacik Zoom on Ivana Bacik Senator Ivana Bacik,
Information on Pádraig MacLochlainn Zoom on Pádraig MacLochlainn Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Information on Eamonn Coghlan Zoom on Eamonn Coghlan Senator Eamonn Coghlan,*
Information on Finian McGrath Zoom on Finian McGrath Deputy Finian McGrath, Information on Martin Conway Zoom on Martin Conway Senator Martin Conway.
Information on Éamon Ó Cuív Zoom on Éamon Ó Cuív Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív,*
Information on Seán Ó Fearghaíl Zoom on Seán Ó Fearghaíl Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl,+
Information on Jonathan O'Brien Zoom on Jonathan O'Brien Deputy Jonathan O'Brien,+
* In the absence of Deputy Niall Collins and Senator Katherine Zappone, respectively.
+ In the absence of Deputies Éamon Ó Cuív and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, respectively, for part of meeting.
Information on David Stanton Zoom on David Stanton DEPUTY DAVID STANTON IN THE CHAIR.
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.Comment
-
#hamsterwheel"Are they trying to shoot down the other drone? "
"No, they're trying to fly the tank"Comment
-
an Ephiphany?May I just say Eamonn O Cuiv is a gobshyte
yeah . that was known as integration...there'll be an initial period where people will do it because of the novelty, and because they want to make a go of it, but they'll get bored of doing the bone stuff and being used like an unpaid skivvy pretty quickly.
I think mindsets and perceptions have to a be adressed.
As long as you have a group prepared to the work of another group unpaid, and have the secondary suspicious that their role and existence undermined by the former they're will always be an element of friction and mistrust.
The Reserve element need to declare that their role is that of a reserve and not to undermine or replace that of the full timer as much as the full time element need to declare and acknowledge a requirement and acceptence the raision d' etre for a reserve.
Having served on both sides of the fence , as a reservist , having the experience of being a professional, I I didn't want to return to that lifestyle again. but as a full timer I couldn't see how a reservist could do my job.
It happened in the past and created a deep rift, should anyone think that the reserve is a quick short cut to the PDF while holding rank, service etc, this needs to be rapidly dispelled.
This has created an underlying suspcion and needs to be written off as a non runner in the future to allay such fears.Covid 19 is not over ....it's still very real..Hand Hygiene, Social Distancing and Masks.. keep safeComment
-
'productive' is a very interesting word to use - you don't, i assume, really believe that this arsewipe of a concept (that people will do someone else's job for free) is going to work in the medium to long term, so the 'product' is going to have to be a new plan: the only debate is over whether that new plan will be the RDF being scrapped and the PDF just having to get used to the idea that no one is going to do the shitty bits of their job for them while they play soldiers in exotic locations, or whether a proper reserve concept that involves pay replaces the current plan.Originally posted by Buck View Post
we can see that the government is determined to ignore all international experience of mobilising/using reservists, and that a significant proportion of the PDF have a somewhat niave - not to say delusionally self-serving - belief that the RDF soldier is so enamoured of his PDF counter-part that he'll give up a weekend, for free, so he can be gate bitch, make the tea, wash the waggons and do all the crap garrison jobs so that his PDF counter-part can take the weekend off and get pissed. its therefore not unlikely that the end result is going to be the scapping of the RDF when the PDF, in a fit of pique, discover that no one thinks they are that special, and that in fact reservists will not repeatedly give up their weekends so they can crawl into bed at 11pm on a Sunday and say to the wife 'i sat on a seat that had been graced by the arse of a PDF hero - its made my life worth living'.
so, is it better that the RDF (in its currrent incarnation) dies a long, slow death that can be framed by the PDF as 'reservists can't hack it - you need to employ more of us', or that the government gets a very clear message that reservists are not unpaid skivvys who will make the tea?Comment
-
I didn't say I personally think that they're surplus to requirement, but that it might be seen that way. Nor do I think that 4000 Reservists can have the same operational output as 4000 Regulars.Originally posted by apod View Post
No, I've never been involved in anything to do with the Public Accounts Committee (I'm assuming that's what the acronym is for).Straight up question on the open forum.Did you have any hand ,act or prior knowledge of the report that was put together for PAC??
I'm not saying that you have to send 100 RDF bodies overseas. With a Single Force, you can achieve a mission objective by using the appropriate cost effective balance of Regular, Reserve, civilians and contractors. So my point is that if you increase the overseas commitment from 850 to 950, you don't HAVE to use 100 Reservists, you can populate that commitment fully with Regulars if they're willing to up the deployment tempo, but you have the capability to use Reservists to augment Regular units where the operation demands and/or employ particular specialist skills from the Reserve that don't exist in the PDF (either at all, or not in sufficient quantities).Originally posted by kaiser View Post
Or just not bother supporting any other branch of the Single Force and just try to cut perceived "competitors" off at the knees before they have a chance to go anywhere, ala PDFORRA/RACOOriginally posted by apod View Post"You have to be 100% behind someone before you can stab them in the back"
No, I don't. I'm just demonstrating possible public perception.Originally posted by Rhodes View Post
At least they've had a say, on public record and hopefully it won't be the last time either. It's better than a kick in the balls or just solely cribbing on the internet.Originally posted by Big Al View PostComment
-
You've hit the nail on the head rope bag!
Apart from 1 thing:
While Government have to legislate, it is based on the advise they receive.Originally posted by ropebag View Post
You assume that the PDF wants to mobilise/use reservists.Comment
-
My comment was more a reflection on the committee than on the rdfra delegation...Originally posted by SwiftandSure View PostYou're even dumber than I tell people
You might have been infected but you never were a boreComment
-
I got that, I'm just delighted that RDFRA got to communicate it's message even if it was to a limited audience directly. More to the point, I think it's good to see that RDFRA can be seen as more than just an old boys club moaning about not having boots, wet gear and barrack jackets.Originally posted by Big Al View PostComment
-
A lot of people misunderstand how government works. You don't need everyone in the room for a witness account to committee to matter, in the same way you don't need a full house for Parlimentary questions. The RDFRA were not there to be interrogated. The Chairman of the committee heard their views, which are now on record for ever.
But I still think O'Cuiv is a useless tosser that bring out everything that is wrong with politics in ireland. He swans into the session, not even having read the VFM, throws insults and accusations at the minister and the DF which are unfounded, then storms out before even getting answers to the questions.
Well done to the chairman for not tolerating his nonsense.
Catch-22 says they have a right to do anything we can't stop them from doing.Comment
-
The Reserve VFM was debated by Committee on Wednesday 24th April 2013
Wednesday, 24 April 2013 Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality Debate
o
The Joint Committee met at 09:30
MEMBERS PRESENT:
Deputy Seán Kenny, Senator Ivana Bacik,
Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, Senator Eamonn Coghlan,*
Deputy Finian McGrath, Senator Martin Conway.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív,*
Deputy Seán Ó Fearghaíl,+
Deputy Jonathan O'Brien,+
* In the absence of Deputy Niall Collins and Senator Katherine Zappone, respectively.
+ In the absence of Deputies Éamon Ó Cuív and Pádraig Mac Lochlainn, respectively, for part of meeting
DEPUTY DAVID STANTON IN THE CHAIR.
VFM Review of Reserve Defence Force: Discussion with Minister for Defence and RDFRA
Chairman:
As we have a quorum we can commence the meeting. Apologies have been received from Deputy Anne Ferris for part of the meeting, Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn and Senator Denis O'Donovan. I thank the Minister for his attendance today to discuss with the committee the value for money review of the Reserve Defence Forces, October 2012. There will be an opening statement from the Minister, followed by a question and answer session.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I will be deputising for Deputy Ó Feargháil.
Chairman:
You are most welcome.
Minister for Defence (Deputy Alan Shatter):
I welcome the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the value for money, VFM, review of the Reserve Defence Forces, which I shall refer to as the RDF for the sake of brevity. I will also outline the progress to date in implementing the response to its findings and recommendations. As the committee is aware, the VFM review of the RDF formally commenced in February 2010 and was conducted during a period of significant uncertainty and change. The previous Government's national recovery plan, NRP, and the current Government's comprehensive review of expenditure, CRE were both key priorities over the course of the intervening period. These priorities drew analytical resources away from the VFM review. In advance of Government decisions relating to the CRE, any recommendations from the VFM review regarding the reserve could have been superseded by changes in the available resource envelope. In this context, the review timeframe was unavoidably extended.
The CRE and the associated reorganisation of the Permanent Defence Force, PDF, within a two brigade structure, defined for the steering committee the level of resourcing available for the reserve. This included the number of PDF personnel that would be available to support the reserve on a full-time basis. This allowed the steering committee to frame appropriate recommendations for the reserve that were financially viable and sustainable within the prevailing resource envelope, and that dovetailed with the broader reorganisation of the Defence Forces.
The VFM report was finalised by the steering committee and submitted to me in early October 2012. It was subsequently laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas and published on the Department of Defence website in November 2012. The report sets out a systematic and detailed analysis of the Reserve Defence Force. The Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan previously set out an ambitious programme of reform for the reserve, which included a major reorganisation in 2005. The VFM review found that the strength and associated training targets set out in that plan were not achieved over the intervening period. This raised concerns about the capacity of the reserve. Although I have no doubt that different people will hold different views as to why the Reserve Defence Force review implementation plan did not achieve its desired objectives, there can be no doubt that it did not.
I am a firm believer in revisiting plans that have not yielded the desired results. Simply maintaining the status quo with the reserve and continuing in the hope of improvement at some point in the future was not a realistic option. The value for money review clearly set out the key issues that must be addressed and although there are many detailed findings within the review, I will outline a brief summary of the key findings and recommendations.
The cost of maintaining the reserve, including the costs of PDF support staff, ranged from €34 million in 2006 to €23.4 million in 2011, having peaked at just under €36 million in 2008. The majority of these costs - or an average 82% - were comprised of PDF support staff costs and the cost of paid training and gratuities for members of the reserve. The effective strength of the Army reserve and Naval Service reserve at end 2011 was less than half of the organisational design strength of 9,692 personnel. The number of full time PDF staff in place supporting these RDF structures was inefficient having regard to the actual strength level of the reserve. The option of recruiting to the establishment level was not realistic given the level of resourcing available for paid training and having regard to previous recruitment trends. In this context, the steering committee concluded that the existing organisational structure was inefficient and unsustainable.
In addition, the reorganisation of the PDF within a strength ceiling of 9,500 personnel required the number of full-time Army PDF support staff for the Army reserve to be capped at 48 personnel, or 24 for each of the two new brigades. There are a further nine PDF support staff for the Naval Service reserve, giving a total of 57 full-time PDF support personnel. An examination of the number of reservists that undertook both paid and unpaid training highlighted that over the period of the review only approximately 60% of reservists undertook any paid training. Research also identified that those reservists not undertaking paid training did not compensate for this with additional unpaid training. In 2011, the number of reservists that met prescribed levels of paid and unpaid training for payment of a gratuity numbered 2,010, excluding recruits, of a reported effective strength of 4,554 personnel.
There is a critical link between the uptake of training and the capacity of the reserve. In this content, the steering committee had concerns about the capacity of the organisation to fulfil its role. I particularly draw the attention of members to the numbers who undertook training. The steering committee noted that the PDF could fulfil all ongoing operational requirements and that there were no operational gaps that required the ongoing deployment of the reserve at home or overseas. In this context, it was concluded there was no requirement to amend the roles of the reserve beyond the contingent role currently provided for. However, it was recommended that there was scope to achieve greater utility from the reserve through usage in a voluntary unpaid capacity for unarmed aid to the civil authority and other specified tasks.
The steering committee considered a range of options for the reserve, including "do-nothing" or "abolish" options. It concluded that it remained prudent that the State should have additional military resources available to provide additional support to the PDF if required. This additional capacity could assist in dealing with a broad range of contingencies. However, in light of concerns regarding the capacity of the reserve, there were caveats.
The steering committee only recommended the retention of the reserve on the conditional basis that it be reformed and reorganised. It also recommended that greater utility should be derived from the reserve in a voluntary unpaid capacity. I accepted the findings and recommendations of the steering committee outlined in the report. This included a recommended strength for the reserve of approximately 4,000 personnel, based both in PDF installations and in 16 other locations throughout the country. This strength level was only sustainable, within existing resources, if gratuities were withdrawn from members of the reserve and this budget redirected to boost the availability of paid training. As Minister, I emphasise the importance of participation in paid training as opposed to simple membership of the reserve.Comment
-
CONTINUED.......
Detailed reorganisation proposals, including the location of the reserve units in the 16 locations outside of PDF installations, were brought forward by the chief of staff and Secretary General of my Department. I accepted these proposals and the details of the reorganisation were published at the same time as the VFM review. The reorganisation would consolidate a large number of under-strength Army reserve units that were previously organised into a three brigade structure into a smaller number of full-strength units within the new two brigade structure. The new organisational structures set a revised strength ceiling for the Reserve of 4,069 personnel, 3,869 for the Army reserve and 200 for the Naval Service reserve.
Implementation of the reorganisation commenced immediately under the auspices of a high-level implementation group chaired by the deputy chief of staff support.
There has been ongoing consultation with the representative associations as part of this implementation process. Revised organisational structures for the reserve came into effect at the end of March 2013. This reorganisation was based on a different model from what had been in place. A single force structure concept means that Army units have permanent and reserve components rather than the previous separate parallel PDF and reserve structures. This will lead to a much closer relationship and improved interoperability. The Naval Service strength ceilings have been revised to reflect effective strength levels and units have been retained in Dublin, Limerick, Waterford and Cork. The Cork unit was moved from Collins Barracks to Haulbowline. Gratuities have been withdrawn from members of the reserve and the budget for 2013 has seen this resource redirected to increase the number of paid man days. This will support the reorganisation process and facilitate any required conversion training for members of the reserve.
The military authorities are currently developing further proposals for my consideration as recommended in the VFM review. These include proposals to amend the regulatory criteria governing the classification of reservists as effective; broader regulatory proposals to further underpin the new organisation; and support relationships, which are also being developed. The military authorities have been actively engaged in developing appropriate support systems that meet the requirements of all stakeholders. As the interaction between PDF and reserve components of units progresses over the coming months, these working relationships will evolve. Activities such as joint training will consolidate the new organisational structures and improve interoperability.
The VFM review highlighted the requirement for reforms to the reserve. These are necessary in order to ensure its continued viability. I am confident that the changes being introduced will create the opportunity for improved PDF and RDF interaction and support an overall enhanced defence capability. The success of this process will be dependent on the efforts of all personnel within the Defence Forces both permanent and reserve and the Defence Forces have an excellent track record in implementing change. In reality, it will take a number of years to determine whether these reforms are having the desired effect. Progress will be monitored on an ongoing basis and I have directed that there will be a formal review of progress after a period of three years.
I thank the steering committee and working group for their work on the VFM. I also acknowledge and thank the members of the reserve for their loyalty and dedication. Finally, I thank the committee for its continued interest in the Reserve Defence Force and I look forward to hearing its views on the review and its implementation. I will do my best to respond to any questions raised.
Chairman:
I thank the Minister. Does anybody have a question for the Minister?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
Who was on the steering committee? In my experience of Departments when they do these VFMs they make sure the steering committee is designed in such a way that they know beforehand what answer they want and they make sure that they get that answer.
Chairman:
The Deputy should be aware that the way this committee operates is that we ask a question and we get an answer. It is a question and answer process.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
That is very different from the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Agriculture, Food and the Marine.
Chairman:
It is far more effective. I invite the Minister to reply to the question about the steering committee.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
As the Deputy will know if he has had an opportunity to read the value for money review, which was published last October, the members of the steering committee are detailed on page three. Mr. Liam Whelan, independent chairperson replaced Ms Mary Butler as independent chairperson in August 2012. It included Mr. Robert Mooney, principal officer, Department of Defence, and Col. Michael Meehan, director strategic planning office, Defence Forces, who replaced Col. Colm Campbell, director strategic planning office, in April 2012. Ms Aileen Nolan, principal officer, Department of Defence, replaced Ms Ann Price, principal officer, in May 2012. Lt Col. Liam O'Carroll, acting director Reserve Defence Force, replaced Col. George Kerton, director Reserve Defence Force, in October 2010, who replaced Lt. Col. Tony Daly, acting director Reserve Defence Force. Ms Stephanie O'Donnell, principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, replaced Mr Dermot Quigley, principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in August 2012. Mr. Fiachra Kennedy, assistant principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, replaced Mr. Eoin Dormer, assistant principal officer, Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, in May 2012. Ms Valerie Byrne, assistant principal officer, Department of Defence, secretary to the steering committee, replaced Mr. Ciaran Desmond, assistant principal officer, Department of Defence, in May 2012, who replaced Mr. Tadgh O'Doherty, assistant principal officer, Department of Defence.
Had the Deputy gone to the trouble of reading the report he could not have missed the names of the individuals in it. Before he makes allegations about a report he clearly has not even read I would suggest to him that he does not make comments to suggest that the members of the committee were chosen to reach some particular conclusion, which is the insinuation. I find it quite astonishing that in a meeting dealing with this issue the Deputy should even have to ask who the members of the steering committee were. He clearly has not read the report.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
The Minister is absolutely correct. I did not get an opportunity to read the report because as I explained when I came in-----
Deputy Alan Shatter:
It has only been published since last October.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
Does the Minister read all the reports published by every Department all the time?
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I read all the reports relevant to my brief.
Chairman:
Can we please get back to questions?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
As the Minister might be aware, this is not my brief.
Chairman: I would appreciate if the Deputy could please deal with questions on the matter of concern this morning.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I thank the Minister for reading out the list of names. It seems extraordinary to me that this VFM is basically the Department and the Army looking at the Department and the Army. Steering committees, as I know from experience as a Minister, tend to be totally dominated by the system and get the answer the system wants.
Was the wider good to society in general of the training and discipline involved in being in the reserve defence force taken into account or was a purely utilitarian military view taken of it? Many of us who had the privilege of being in what was then the FCA benefited greatly on a personal level and society benefited from the training we got as members of that reserve. To judge by what the Minister has said here this morning that does not seem to be part of the review.
There are figures on the summary costs. The training cost for the PDF cadre in 2011 was €16 million. If the Reserve Defence Force were to be abolished this morning, how much of the €23 million spent in 2011 could have been saved in reality or would it be a fact that those Permanent Defence Force members would continue to be Permanent Defence Force members and that the Civil Service personnel would continue to be Civil Service personnel and their wages paid, and would the costs of the director of reserve personnel at the Defence Forces headquarters also have to be paid? If the Minister were to abolish the Reserve Defence Force what would be the net savings?Comment
-
CONTINUED.....
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I find the Deputy's questions really interesting.
I should have welcomed the members of the reserve who are in the Gallery to hear our exchanges and the extent to which issues are addressed seriously in this Parliament. It is a very good thing that they are here this morning. I gather the committee is meeting them this afternoon. I very much welcome that because I particularly value the work done by members of the reserve who engage in training days and have volunteered to be part of the reserve. Being part of the reserve is a clear signal of people's patriotism and commitment to the community and willingness to contribute to it.
My particular concern about the reserve is that those who are active in it and have participated in training days have had in recent years minimal opportunity to utilise that training in practical terms. They are entitled to an organisation and structure which creates a greater possibility of them doing so and which provides for greater connectivity between the reserve and the PDF. Sadly, that was lacking during the period of years in which Deputy Ó Cuív was in government where there was a headline
figure of membership that was never achieved. A large amount of public money was, if I may say so, wasted on paying gratuities to individuals who were not participating in training days. There was a fiction maintained as to the numbers within the reserve who were generally available as trained members to provide assistance to the PDF should it be required. What we have done in this context is in the public interest, which is important.
It is astonishing that a Deputy, who spent many years in government while the economy was destroyed, could come in to this meeting which has been arranged for some time, representing the Fianna Fáil Party, and address questions on which he pretends to have a serious view to me on a report published in October 2012 that he has not read. That is quite extraordinary.
Chairman:
Could we get back to the questions?
Senator Martin Conway:
The Minister is correct.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I am sorry if Deputy Ó Cuív does not like my response. He cast aspersions on the steering committee.
Senator Martin Conway:
If I may, on a point of order-----
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
We have had enough of this Government.
Chairman:
Could we-----
Deputy Alan Shatter:
He cast aspersions on the motives of the review group-----
Chairman:
Sorry, Minister-----
Deputy Alan Shatter:
-----and it is not acceptable.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
I did not.
Chairman:
If we could focus on the questions and answers and leave it at that, I would much appreciate it.
Senator Martin Conway:
Deputy Ó Cuív has not read the report. It is appalling.
Chairman:
Please.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
Sorry,-----
Senator Martin Conway:
No, we spend our time coming in here. Some of us actually read the report.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
I will not take lectures from the Minister.
Chairman:
If we could focus on the questions and answers, it would make it more beneficial.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
I will not take lectures from the Minister.
Chairman:
Fair enough.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
Or insults and cheap jibes.
Chairman:
If we could focus-----
Senator Martin Conway:
It is a pity Deputy Ó Cuív did not read the report.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
That is all the Minister is good for. It is a sure sign of weakness.
Senator Martin Conway:
No, it is a pity Deputy Ó Cuív did not read the report.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
It is a sure sign of weakness.
Chairman:
Comments through the Chair please, if members do not mind.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
It is a sure sign of weakness.
Chairman:
I will have to suspend the meeting if they do not. We need to have questions and answers. That is what I would ask of the Minister and the Deputy.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
I have one final question.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I will finish this.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
Could the Minister answer me-----
Chairman:
If Deputy Ó Cuív does not mind, through the Chair, he has asked a number of questions already. I invite the Minister to answer those questions as succinctly and precisely as he can and then we will give Deputy Ó Cuív another opportunity for his final question. Is that acceptable?
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
May I ask one final question?
Chairman:
Of course.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
Was-----
Chairman:
No, when we get the answers to the questions Deputy Ó Cuív asked already.
Deputy Alan Shatter: Deputy Ó Cuív raised questions as to the remit of the steering committee. Page 2 of the report, under the heading of review, scope and terms of reference-----
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív: I have read that.
Deputy Alan Shatter: -----details the terms of reference of the committee. Those terms of reference clearly require that the review be undertaken in the context of maximising the use of public resources and ensuring that, in looking to the future as to whether we should have a reserve defence force and what its functions should be, all relevant issues be examined. The terms of reference provided for the outline defence policy and strategy and the associated development plan for the RDF. That was in the public interest in the context of looking at the role of the RDF in current defence policy and strategy. It was something of public interest and important, and something to ensure that the training, for example, that the RDF gets is truly of relevance, is in the public interest and is not based on an outdated strategy that has no application in 2013, 2014, 2015.
Second, the committee was asked to identify the inputs, that is, the level and trend of costs and staffing resources associated with the RDF, including PDF and Department of Defence staffing resources. That is relevant because, as Deputy Ó Cuív will be aware, we are spending a substantially greater sum in this State by way of public expenditure.Comment
-
CONTINUED......
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
On a point of order, did I raise any question about the terms of reference?
Chairman:
Yes.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
I did not.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Deputy Ó Cuív asked was the public interest considered in the-----
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
In the wider public interest.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Yes, in the wider public interest. Dealing with the wider public interest, what was identified in the context of the report was that a substantial sum of money was being spent on the reserve by way of the payment of gratuities to members who do not participate in training, and that clearly was a feature for the entire period that Deputy Ó Cuív was in office. We wanted to ensure in the public interest that those members of the reserve who were in receipt of public moneys participated in training and had the capacity to provide assistance to the PDF should it be required if an issue arose. Clearly, that was in the public interest.
The committee next had to identify the level and trend of training activity and the outputs associated with the RDF. In the context of outputs, an issue I mentioned earlier, we have, for example, the Civil Defence which, when there is an emergency of different descriptions, and usually climate related, on a volunteer basis provides substantial assistance, and does so at no cost to the State. The State has been for some time in the midst of a fiscal difficulty of which the Deputy will be familiar and one of the issues was what contribution the RDF can make, and in circumstances where, if its members are asked to undertake duties for which they have undertaken training, it results in a cost to the Exchequer. There are circumstances in which the Civil Defence is currently utilised in which the RDF could be utilised, either jointly or separately from the Civil Defence. There was clearly an issue - the report addresses it - as to circumstances in which, in a volunteer capacity, the RDF could be engaged as support for the PDF or in assistance to the civil power. It is clearly in the public interest that such matters be clarified and addressed and, if I could say so, it is in the interests of members of the RDF.
Since becoming Minister, I have spoken to many members of the RDF. One of their frustrations, which I understand and with which I identify, is that they participate in training but they feel they are not utilised and there are opportunities when they could have been utilised. In a time of austerity when the State must be careful with how it spends public money, where there is Civil Defence personnel trained to engage in something that it could do with equal efficiency to the RDF, even where the RDF has the training, the Civil Defence is engaged in practical terms because it does not result in expense to the State. That is unfair to members of the RDF, all of whom are volunteers who receive little money for participating individually in the RDF, who have a commitment and who would welcome the opportunity to make a contribution. It is in their interest and the public interest they be afforded the opportunity to do so.
The review committee next had to examine the extent to which the plan's objectives have been achieved. These plans, which were in place during the lifetime of the previous Government and which we inherited when we came into office, were clearly dysfunctional and not working. It was in the public interest and in the interest of members of the RDF that such be addressed.
Chairman:
Could I interrupt the Minister for a moment? He will not mind if I intervene. I am anxious that we get more questions from members here. The members could read that and we can refer them to it because it is in the report.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I was anxious, because Deputy Ó Cuív seemed to think I did not want to give him a full reply, that I gave him the fullest reply possible.
There is one other issue Deputy Ó Cuív raised which I can deal with briefly, that is, costing issues. On the figures I gave, in 2011 some €23 million was spent on the RDF and the changes will reduce the expenditure to €11 million. In the context of the PDF, there was a cadre of members of the PDF whose sole duty was to service an RDF of 9,500 that was never achieved.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
That should have been reorganised years ago. The Minister is dead right there. I have no problem with that. My party accepts that.
Chairman:
Through the Chair.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
What we have effected is a reduction in the supports necessary for the RDF, to the number overall of 57 from approximately 350. The benefit of that at a time of limited resources is that the members of the PDF who were providing those supports are now freed up to do other duties within the PDF
It is in the interests of the Defence Forces and the public that they are assigned to do duties of value and which are identifiable, and which contribute to the work of the Permanent Defence Force.
Deputy Éamon Ó Cuív:
With regard to the final point made by the Minister, those involved in the day-to-day running of the Army should have dealt with it ages ago. It is very simple and it does not take a huge report to do it. As somebody who did guard duty in Kippure, with members of the Permanent Defence Force, as well as in Carrickmines and Roundwood, I agree with the Minister that change is needed, but all of the so-called value for money independent reviews are internal. Was Fianna Fáil in government in Cyprus, Greece, Spain and Portugal?
Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn:
The Minister will have some fun with that and I would rather ask him a question on the report.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
If a Deputy asks questions and then leaves the room he clearly does not want to hear responses so I will not waste the time of the other members in responding.
Chairman:
I ask the Minister to allow Deputy Mac Lochlainn ask his questions.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I am looking forward to listening to Deputy Mac Lochlainn who I know has a genuine interest in the issue.
Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn: I apologise for being late and for missing the Minister's presentation but I have read it. The level of reservists who did not participate in training could not be sustained and had to be addressed. There is no question about this. A member of the Reserve Defence Force, as a support to the Permanent Defence Force, should train on a regular basis, as should members of Civil Defence and others who support the front line. There is no question about this issue.
I have no doubt the Minister will agree with what I am about to say. The civic pride and sense of patriotism which civilians have in being able to participate in the Reserve Defence Force is not just about the training, ceremony and marching on St. Patrick's day. It is about being involved in the community and teaching young men and women a sense of place and identity. It is a powerful experience for anybody who has been through it. I have met a significant number of reservists who had concerns prior to the publication of the value for money report and what followed.Comment
-
CONTINUED.......
I have submitted parliamentary questions and engaged with the Minister's colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Kehoe, on this matter. If one reads the parliamentary questions it is clear the budgetary allocation for the Reserve Defence Force year on year had been reduced over a number of years. It is not acceptable somebody in the Reserve Defence Force was not participating in training on a regular basis, but rather than removing people who are not participating in training we could have had enhancements. The Minister has set a ceiling of 4,000. Later this afternoon the Reserve Defence Force Representative Association will present its response to the committee. Will the Minister read the transcript of what the witnesses have to say and see whether any issues they raise could be addressed retrospectively? It is important when we deal with the legitimate systematic issues raised by the report that we also see the immense value of citizens having an opportunity to be part of this.
Two fantastic young women reservists in Carndonagh in Donegal told me that up to 100 young people in the local school expressed an interest in being part of the Reserve Defence Force. The difficulty is that the base there will be centralised in central Donegal and they will not have the same support from cadres. Will the Minister reflect on whether we can encourage a new generation of young people to be part of this and understand that with this responsibility comes regular training, because one is a real support to the Permanent Defence Force?
I apologise for taking so long to ask my question, but the Minister takes a fair long time to respond to questions so I am sure he will return the favour. The Minister should address the issues which need to be addressed, but a number of young people throughout the State would like to be a part of the Reserve Defence Force. It will be grand to have a new, leaner and fitter Reserve Defence Force but will the Minister consider the ceiling and review it regularly and throw out the net to see what interest exists and how as many young people as possible can be allowed to be involved and part of this? It is a very proud tradition and I would not like people to have a sense we are winding it down. This is the impression given by the budget allocation. There is pride among the people who have served. Moving forward we can make it leaner, fitter and fresher but we need to keep the net open for people to get involved.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
I would disagree with absolutely nothing Deputy Mac Lochlainn has said. The commitment to volunteerism and engagement, and the interest of members of the Reserve Defence Force, is very commendable and should be encouraged. I very much encourage young people, within the limited numbers for which we can provide at present, to engage with the Reserve Defence Force. With regard to those who are members and, if I can put it this way, who have an emotional attachment to the Reserve Defence Force but who have long since passed engaging in training and are not training, it is important that we have a turnover of people with young people coming in. I do not want it to be suggested that I am encouraging any particular individual not to engage, but what the Deputy stated is right. It is important we encourage young people to join the Reserve Defence Force.
We must be conscious that we have a numbers issue. Reserve Defence Force numbers are approximately 50% of the numbers in the Army and Naval Service in the Permanent Defence Force, so there is a connection with regard to where the number should be. People should be encouraged, but we must operate in the financial parameters which exist at present, and there are no mechanisms for increasing public expenditure.
As the Minister for Defence I have had to do battle to ensure we have the resources we need. Resources were assigned to the Permanent Defence Force prior to my coming to office, and when I examined where we were going for the next two or three years I saw that the numbers in the Permanent Defence Force could have fallen below 8,000 because of the original deals done with the troika and what was being assigned to the Department of Defence. At an early stage I moved to get a Government decision to ensure we maintained numbers at 9,500 and did not drop below a figure which would render it impossible for the Permanent Defence Force to perform its civil function and continue to engage in UN peacekeeping operations, which is a very important element of what we do internationally.
I will keep this under review. I hope that as a result of the changes effected the vast majority of the Reserve Defence Force will take up training days. We will keep an eye on how things are going. I have no doubt that in 12 to 18 months the committee will discuss how implementation has worked and whether any further change is necessary.
Of course I will read the transcript of the Reserve Defence Force representatives who will present to the committee today. I make a habit of reading anything to do with my brief. It is very important that if the Reserve Defence Force representatives present to the committee when I am not present that I consider what they say.
I know this has been a difficult time for members of the Reserve Defence Force. Change is difficult and I thank them for their co-operation in the change that has been effected.
The Permanent Defence Force and the Reserve Defence Force have been engaged in implementing this change together and I hope we will have a more effective RDF, with public resources being used in a manner that clearly is in the public interest.
Chairman:
Just one more question.
Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn:
I thank the Minister for his response and will make a final brief point. I suggest the joint committee might schedule a review of this issue in a year's time. Members will have received the presentation from the association, the Minister will have had a chance to consider it and perhaps in a year's time, members could reconvene with the representative association to ascertain what is the position and whether there is scope to revisit some of the issues. Is this fair enough?
Chairman:
We might even revisit some of the training camps, as we did last Thursday in the Glen of Imaal.
Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn:
That also would be good.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Members might join in some of the training as well.
Chairman:
I should declare an interest to the Minister, as I have done a lot of that in the past.
Deputy Alan Shatter:
Yes, I knew that.
Senator Martin Conway:
Change is always challenging and difficult and having read the report, I commend those who commissioned it and worked on it. It was very interesting and the commitment by the Minister to implement the recommendations must be welcomed because for too long in this country, value-for-money reports have been commissioned but the findings have not been implemented. I also welcome the commitment to have a look at it in 18 months' time. The Minister's opening statement indicates he has ordered a review in three years' time but his commitment today to consider it in 18 months' time is welcome. This brings me to a brief question, which is how quickly does the Minister plan to implement those recommendations in the report which he has accepted? Does he plan to move in the next few weeks to get it up and running?Comment
Comment